I liked your Other God song. I've been trying to find more Hiphop with a truly Satanic twist. The best I've done is find The Flatlinerz from the 90's who were just a gimmick and all the Non-Phixion cats like Necro who are more Horrorcore as opposed to Satanic Rap.

I like rock and roll a whole hell of a lot more but I'll have to give you credit where credit is due, that was pretty cool. I thought that it was even better than Flatlinerz (I remember them) that Morbid Rex mentioned.

You should introduce yourself and work on your profile so that you don't get misinterpreted that you're here strictly to market yourself.

Not too bad. But not quite my cup of tea either. It is good to see Satanic bands that AREN'T metal, though.

There's a rap group called Dalek, that, while not being "Satanic" per se, express a sort of chaotic, misanthropic, and anti-christian theme in their lyrics. Their sound is also very dark, aggressive, distorted, and disharmonic. Certainly of interest if you're looking for hip-hop that's left-of-center, and written by intelligent artists rather than empty-headed morons in overpriced clothes waving dollar bills around.

I agree Morbid about your link. .I see Satanic and metal goes hand to hand like peanut butter and jelly. It is hard for someone to rap about Satanic themes without resorting to use ghetto, cars, drugs, and hoes. I wish that Knife did introduce himself first before posting a post about his music.

They're pretty awesome as far as rap goes. Lots of awesome songs so far with no reference to fast cars, bling, or womanizing.

Here's one of their songs- "Spritual Healing"

Who you pray to, my god the black god?Who you pray to, my god the brown god?Who you pray to, my god the white god?Your reaction's kind of odd for a kid who loves to nod.

I wear skin like jesusSick of bullshit preachersConcerned with aborted fetusBut don't give a fuck who feeds us.Speech so tedious,If abraham freed us,Why there still abner louima's?Been slaves since days of julius caesarMan's need to dominate overshadows need to breathPray to your pagan gods while you're twisting all those treesScraped knees don't prove what you believeYour blind faith passed to your seeds,Killed our garden type weeds,Turn around and blame it on eve.While you blame me for blemishing our family treeI'll uproot all of humanity.

Who you pray to, my god the black god?Who you pray to, my god the brown god?Who you pray to, my god the white god?Your reaction's kind of odd for a kid who loves to nod.

Sick of true blasphemy,Religion, pure alchemyAnd gold lines no lead streetsBlessed are the meek who reek in honestyTrue green lie in botany,They're hawking me from high atop the food chainDeciding who to blame for each and every heartless actWeight of elements exactI retain no tact and spit the pure factMixed with blood from split tongueCollapsed lung only help to breath diseased atmosphereExpect me to adhere to your bullshit code of silenceSpeak till dawn of violenceThey say no man's an island...I’ve watched the youth,These kids is wildin'

They have some pretty nice stuff. I found their entire discography online, I'm liking their debut and I'll check out there other stuff when I get the time. Hell if it's good enough I might actually buy some of it.

It is hard for someone to rap about Satanic themes without resorting to use ghetto, cars, drugs, and hoes.

And why is that?In the end rap is just a form of expression. If you have the talent to write rap lyrics, you can rap about whatever.I have a friend who makes satanic rap, and he doesn't have to resort to using any ghetto bullshit.

I once tried writing rap, but writing good rap lyrics is a lot harder than normal lyrics, with having to make the stuff rhyme so that it sounds good and the flow and all... So I just stick to what I do best, writing lyrics for my two metal bands.

Yes I forgot about the forum rules and I'm sorry about that but hey I'm a Satanist (or at least portray one on wax lol).. Ay Morbid my new album "K9IF3" will have 'Other Gods' on it so go check that out when it hits FYE on 4/20, I also leaked it on the internet, I think all of you would like it. By the way Linaka, yes I should've introduced myself but honestly I didn't think I needed to since everyone knows who I am

I love horrorcore as well but I kind of died inside when Triple 6 Mafia sold out like that.

So what, you claim to be a Satanist, big deal....You should have introduced yourself, most people have no idea who you are.I sure as shit don't, and I never heard of you.I think your ego is writing checks, your body can't cash.

A Rev. and a Ph.D, really. I mean come on.....

Morgan

_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear Fuck em if they can't take a jokeDon't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass

Damn y'all take this shit seriously don't you I sure as Hell disagree though (with the whole you never heard of me bit) anyways fine I'll introduce myself, though a Google search wouldn't hurt;

I am the Reverend "Knife" Sotelo and yes I am a legitimate priest (guess from where), my Ph.D. in Religion is completely honorary, I got it from the Universal Life Church (ULCM) So I mean come on, sounds like your quick to judge...

Anyways I joined the Church of Satan (CoS) as soon as I turned 18 out of respect for Anton LaVey and not because it was the thing to do, unbeknown about Gilmore's clique at the time I started getting into a few flame wars over the net with Ventrue and especially Bloodfire although my affiliation was short lived (not even a year), I haven't forgotten about the great people I met and walked with in the country like former CoS member Michael Margolin aka The Mad Poet, Stanton LaVey and even Mark Herman from Insolence.

Not only that, I'm also a record executive, I started my own label as well as reorganized A Dark Philosophy Records (ADP Records), I've signed acts ranging from genre to genre, you might recognize a few; Absentation, Khaos Faktory, Feralbeest, Garfan, The Larch, Rhyme God, Kasper Kane, Azazel, Apis, Fluid Dynamic, the list just goes on and on so if you want to support Satanic musicians just buy our albums at any local FYE.

Damn y'all take this shit seriously don't you ;\) I sure as Hell disagree though (with the whole you never heard of me bit) anyways fine I'll introduce myself, though a Google search wouldn't hurt;

If this were a Christian forum, vanity such as this would be sinful behavior indeed. However, this is a Satanism forum, and we do not hold many of the same sins in common. Regardless, I must say that such unfounded masturbatory ego stroking is unbecoming. For all of your "credentials," none of them would appear to be anything half so great as to give you the overinflated opinion of yourself you seem to have.

You are the "priest" of a "religion" which seeks to subvert all religions, including your own (which I am still trying to comprehend the utter ludicrousness of); an "honorary" Ph.D. in anything is not worth the paper it is printed on, especially when it does not come from an accredited academic institution (of which the ULCM is not one).

On the CoS stuff, I will not even comment, as I have never been a member, nor do I plan to be in the foreseeable future. I can say that I know the opinion of many on here of the CoS, and I can say that as far as your dealings with them, the consensus will probably be "big whoop."

Quote:

Not only that, I'm also a record executive, I started my own label as well as reorganized A Dark Philosophy Records (ADP Records), I've signed acts ranging from genre to genre, you might recognize a few; Absentation, Khaos Faktory, Feralbeest, Garfan, The Larch, Rhyme God, Kasper Kane, Azazel, Apis, Fluid Dynamic, the list just goes on and on so if you want to support Satanic musicians just buy our albums at any local FYE.

I have never heard of you, the label, nor any of the acts which you mention. By this, I do not mean to imply that the label or the acts do not exist; on the contrary, I am sure they are very real. The point is, perhaps your operation is not as advanced as you thought? Availability in a national record store chain does not mean that what you have to offer is good. It would seem that almost all you do reeks of charlatanism.

You are the "priest" of a "religion" which seeks to subvert all religions, including your own (which I am still trying to comprehend the utter ludicrousness of); an "honorary" Ph.D. in anything is not worth the paper it is printed on, especially when it does not come from an accredited academic institution (of which the ULCM is not one).

First of all I'm a priest of the ULC so their ordinations are legitimate but I see you're talking about the Sinagogue of Satan now, well to make things perfectly clear as I stated in the chat room the SoS is based on 1+(-1)=0, it's Aleister Crowley's Union of Opposites, therefore the Sinagogue of Satan's concepts are not confined within a single system. To understand this, the person must go beyond the duality of "for" and "against," reaching for that point of unity which is far beyond mere distinction. In other words, it takes away the "You're wrong, I'm right" mentality from people.

Now as far as my degree goes, the point was I said it was "honorary" at least I didn't go around claiming it's some recognized degree of some university, now if it was a customary degree from a Satanic institution it still wouldn't even matter because as far as my knowledge goes, honorific titles still stand.

Quote:

On the CoS stuff, I will not even comment, as I have never been a member, nor do I plan to be in the foreseeable future. I can say that I know the opinion of many on here of the CoS, and I can say that as far as your dealings with them, the consensus will probably be "big whoop."

Well I don't expect anything, I just felt that it needed to be said.

Quote:

I have never heard of you, the label, nor any of the acts which you mention. By this, I do not mean to imply that the label or the acts do not exist; on the contrary, I am sure they are very real. The point is, perhaps your operation is not as advanced as you thought? Availability in a national record store chain does not mean that what you have to offer is good. It would seem that almost all you do reeks of charlatanism.

(Ssssssssssssssssssssssssssss...that is the sound of a deflating ego)

Trust, I got one huge ego, now is that really a bad thing? As for my operation, it's bigger then you actually think. Comparing my label to something like Dimmu Borgir's label is like comparing Reptilian/Adversary Recordings' status. Now I can make it happen no doubt, the next band I'm going to sign will be LVCIFER (you may have heard of them from the CoS, if not then my point exactly) and believe me when I say this, availability in a national or international record store chain legitimizes an act.

The "You're wrong, I'm right= bad" mentality does smell an awful lot like Leftism I fear. And all too often it is wielded by those who are wrong to begin with. The ones that are right seldom feel the need to accept the wrong as equal.Only commenting upon that trivial, not that familiar with the SoS but apparently I might have a ball checking them out.

Words like CoS, reverend and PhD don't do much here. Largely we judge people on what they bring to the table but I admit, we might get distracted by T&A occasionally. That you do something with music, great, but rap most of the time is a bit looked down upon. Most of it makes me feel it is the correct soundtrack to a degenerated consumer society gone crazy. From time to time I however encounter some that is enjoyable but never to the degree that it makes me shake my booty.

First of all I'm a priest of the ULC so their ordinations are legitimate

As legit as sending in an email. I too, am an ordained priest courtesy of the ULC. My cat can be an ordained priest. The beer can I drank from could be an ordained priest. This "priesthood" is about as worthless as the paper it's printed on. Do they still make you print your own? It's been 10 years since I got mine.

Your PHD is just as fancy as the one I have hanging on my wall. I also ponied up a few $ to buy the same one. Your's for only $29.99 plus shipping. You can also order fancy frames for it to proudly display in your home or office.

my three cats are all ordained ministers, as am I of course. I didnt realize that people actually take this seriously?I will have to confer with Reverend Bugsy and Pastor Gustav about this... High Priest Motor is busy licking his browneye.

First off, cats can't become ordained LOL. The "Universal Life Church Monastery" is a separate entity from the original ULC and therefore their ordinations are fraud. The ULC lets you print out the receipt of your ordination, you still need to order the certificate from headquarters. As I said in other posts on the 600 Club, I ain't sellin' shit.

Please don't tell me that you actually EXPECT people to look at it as anything other than a joke. Because it's not. The ULC began as a tax dodge and continues to be such, however, it's also become a cheap and easy way for those with nothing going for themselves to give themselves a title (Why back in Kansas we had...)

An honorary PhD from the ULC. I know I'm impressed.

Let me take my sheepskin from Chapman down and store it away so that it's not overshadowed by the prestige of the Universal Get A Life Church.

I agree; I do not think you are "sellin' shit," but I think you are buying into it. A little of your own, too, I might add.

The ULC Monastery is a scam of a scam. They found a way to take something completely asinine and further degrade it. Just polishing a turd, which is essentially what you have been doing.

A REAL Ph.D. is obtained ONLY AFTER aqcuiring a Bachelor's (4 year degree)and a Master's (typically 2 year), as well as a, typically, four-year residency in an accredited doctoral program, culminating in a final project known as a DISSERTATION (which very often requires fieldwork). You see, a traditional Ph.D. implies WORK, whereas a ULC Ph.D. means you pissed away a few dollars and a few minutes online in between surfing porn sites.

OK. ULC's got some fine standards fer sure. In 40 seconds flat, Yoyo Block became a Reverend with the ULC. Here's her ordination:

Yoyo is a cat.

She won't be getting her ready to frame ordination certificate, or the deluxe plastic card, or even her honorary Doctor of Divinity. She has no money for these items. She's a cat. But she is now a ULC Reverend. She can do all of the reverent things that revernds do. She can't talk. She's a cat.

I once tried writing rap, but writing good rap lyrics is a lot harder than normal lyrics, with having to make the stuff rhyme so that it sounds good and the flow and all... So I just stick to what I do best, writing lyrics for my two metal bands.

I've never been much of a fan of rap or hip-hop; in fact, in general, it is the bane of my existence. However, I will say this: rap & hip-hop producers, lyricists, and DJs certainly have their work cut out for them.

Writing rap lyrics is a challenge, to say the least; laying out a catchy beat is something that requires a great ear. And rap is quite possibly the most difficult musical genre to mix.

However, I will say this: rap & hip-hop producers, lyricists, and DJs certainly have their work cut out for them.

How so? I have never been interested, so I do not really know what all goes into making a rap song/record. It seems to me, however, that it is mostly a cut-and-paste kind of job. Much of what I have heard (which is, admittedly, little) seems to consist in large part of sampling, which is to say bits of music by other artists, or sound samples in a software database. You may disagree, but take P. Diddy for instance. I find the guy to be a hack, and you may agree. He made his career from raping songs by the Police and Led Zeppelin; his only contribution were new lyrics. The beat, the music, nor any of the rest of it his original music. That is like taking the Mona Lisa, painting a mustache on it, crossing out Da Vinci's signature and writing your own.

Quote:

Writing rap lyrics is a challenge, to say the least

The thing I dislike about rap lyrics is how they perpetuate the poor (if not incoherent) use of the English language. "Is you is, or is you ain't gon' give me a ride?" While I understand that "I faced my enemy with the courage of my convictions" does not have as much street cred as "I was all up in that nigga's face to show him I keep it real," it is far more well-spoken.

Quote:

laying out a catchy beat is something that requires a great ear.

Catchy tends to translate as "simplistic," which is not always a bad thing. However, many of the beats I have heard are simplistic to the point of being elementary. When a hip-hop guy comes back with a beat reminiscent of the shifting meter in the Rite of Spring, perhaps I will be impressed. If one already exists, please let me know. Of course, then it would be harder to dance to (but not impossible; it is a ballet, after all).

Most music has a beat (there are some composers in art music of the 20th century who created music which all but eschews meter). However, I cannot tell you how many times I have heard someone say "I like it because it has a beat and I can dance to it." That, in my opinion, is not a viable aesthetic position.

I do not wish this to be understood as a personal attack against anyone; I wish to debate, to have my opinions challenged.

I'm not going to defend rap here but I'd like to mention that while sampling is looked down upon as rather uncreative by some, I do see it at a musical level as what is "collage" at other levels of art.

If you'd look at some of the works of Hannah Höch, you'd notice that it could be considered as some sort of sampling but at the same time, it does create a new artform.

So personally I do see it as a bit more evolved than drawing a mustache at the Mona Lisa.

I would have to agree with Drac here. A collage entails taking several things and mixing them into one. If that was done musically it would indeed be an artform, but that isn't what hiphop does. Taking a pre-existing song, removing the lyrics and replacing it with what amounts to very bad poetry isn't creating a collage.

It's painting a wang on "The Scream" or placing a pair of novelty plastic mustache glasses on "David". It's an entire genre that lets untalented and unmusical people pretentiously play pretend.

Sampling is an art form if done correctly. Anyone can rip a random funk beat, loop it, and slap their own lyrics on top, but it takes talent to blend a large number of elements together into something new and interesting. Most rap... like most rock, pop, metal, etc... is total shit. But in that pile of total shit are a few shiny untainted gems.

I like all kinds of music, and I have to agree with Diavolo and The Zebu. There are gems within the pile of shit. Just like how metal has some joke bands.

You can't throw everything out just because 85% of it sucks.

Run DMC, LL Cool J, Public Enemy, Ice T, Rappers Delight, Salt n Pepper, and Biggie Smalls. The guys who did the song "White Lines" from back in the day. The band Onxy, who teamed up and toured with Anthrax fuck ass years ago. Hell, even Little Wayne with his current mix of him playing metal gutair on his rap songs. There are others as well.

Just because you are not exposed to something, doesn't mean it shit. Oh, and btw, yeah, puffy daddy sucks.

M

_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear Fuck em if they can't take a jokeDon't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass

There was some great stuff in the 80ies and I enjoyed much of it and even today, there is some good stuff out there. But again, much of it is ridiculously bad. But so it is in all aspects of creativity.

It's like this place, flooded with nonentities most of the time but even when, others here still rock.

Of course there is shit in every type of music, and I did not mean to imply that all other types, save rap, were irreproachable. Perhaps I have become an elitist snob, but I think it has more to do with the fact that I approach listening to music as a musician and not a casual music enthusiast. One could say that it is kind of like someone who is/was in the military, and they are watching a VERY Hollywood glamorized film and thinking "THAT'S all wrong; that would never happen in a real combat situation." I listen to something and I think "what is so hard about that compared with what I do?" Granted, "more difficult" does not necessarily mean "better," but I do think an element of effort required is a factor.

Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread

It's an entire genre that lets untalented and unmusical people pretentiously play pretend.

Originally Posted By: The Zebu

Anyone can rip a random funk beat, loop it, and slap their own lyrics on top, but it takes talent to blend a large number of elements together into something new and interesting.

That is the rub, is it not? Is it art if anyone can do it? I do not think so. Art has, for the most part, been founded on the principle that it is something that not everyone can do. Again, I suppose that is the elitist part coming into play, but I feel art would be rendered insignificant if it were to become something that anyone/everyone could do.

Musical borrowing is not a new concept. It was prevalent in music from the Medieval period through the Baroque, but continued from the Classical period to even today. For instance, in the Medieval and Renaissance periods, composers would compose entire masses based on a melody (which usually came from a liturgical chant) called a [/i]cantus firmus.

In the Baroque period, many composers would borrow from other composers (which was seen as a high form of flattery...you know what they say about imitation), such as for a theme and variations movement. Bach himself would borrow from other composers, but more often than not he borrowed from his own compositions; many of the Baroque composers had such a huge corpus of work to draw from, it makes sense, no? Also, Bach had very real obligations in his church positions; he had to come up with new music very frequently, and sometimes it was easier to draw upon his own works to write "new" music for the following Sunday.

A theme and variations composition is another form of borrowing, in which a composer would borrow a theme (though that is not always the case; very often, the theme is an original composition as well) from another celebrated composer and work out a series of variations on that theme. Regardless, a great deal of compositional skill is required.

So you see, it is not a new concept, but to equate what is done by these people today with what was done by Josquin des Prez, Guillaume Machaut, Bach, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, or Schubert is to insult their memory and the world of music itself. It may be similar, but it is definitely not the same thing.

Originally Posted By: Morgan

I like all kinds of music,

I do not. That may seem strange coming from a musician, but I think that there is an erroneous presumption that musicians (and even non-musicians) "have" to like a little bit of everything. I do not agree at all. I know where my aesthetic sensibilities lie, and there is much music in this world which does not lie with them. There is a difference between appreciation and admiration. And no, I do not find myself at all limited because of it

The problem with the arts in general, is that they are subjective by nature. As a result, no conclusive accord could be made by everyone, and I can both understand and appreciate that.

That is the rub, is it not? Is it art if anyone can do it? I do not think so. Art has, for the most part, been founded on the principle that it is something that not everyone can do. Again, I suppose that is the elitist part coming into play, but I feel art would be rendered insignificant if it were to become something that anyone/everyone could do.

Nowadays, art is considered if you can hold a pencil and make a line on a piece of paper... Same goes for music, if you take existing songs, modify them on computer, chant something on the tune (voice automatically is modified so you sound "nice") it is considered as very artistic... luckily there are quite some alternative bands who experiment with new tunes.. To state my point: Modern art.. @ barcelona is a museum where a plank with 3 nails nailed in it and painted white is considered "outstanding, inspiring piece of art"... Here in Belgium you have "het S.M.A.K".. one of the art pieces is just an old sofa with a broken vent...

Guess it depends on how one defines it.. To me art is more of the likes of Rubens, Van Gogh, Toulouse-Lautrec, William Turner,...

Quote:

I do not. That may seem strange coming from a musician, but I think that there is an erroneous presumption that musicians (and even non-musicians) "have" to like a little bit of everything. I do not agree at all. I know where my aesthetic sensibilities lie, and there is much music in this world which does not lie with them. There is a difference between appreciation and admiration. And no, I do not find myself at all limited because of it

Same here, I can also be considered as a muscician, and I neither like all sorts of music. Why? Because I don't like certain tunes. I can however say if something is played well and congratulate the musicians if I noticed that the played tunes are technically quite hard to produce..

Appreciating music based on how it is played is different from appreciating music based on personal likeness..

Same here, I can also be considered as a muscician, and I neither like all sorts of music. Why? Because I don't like certain tunes. I can however say if something is played well and congratulate the musicians if I noticed that the played tunes are technically quite hard to produce..

Appreciating music based on how it is played is different from appreciating music based on personal likeness..

I absolutely agree, but the type of music currently under discussion does not fall under the consideration of technique.

I do agree that not everything creative is art. Egalitarianism has infected all levels of society and nowadays it seems, like Dimi said, that if you can hold a pencil and draw a line on paper, you are an artist. The same can be said for music or other aspects of creativity. How many call themselves a writer because they write? I do think it requires more than that.

At the level of art I do think there are some requirement for something to be Art. Although it does not necessarily require all.

The first is craftsmanship; and this is all what art was before the days it got elevated above it. If you do not have the skills or quality of skills, no matter what you create, it will not be art. At best you are lucky. In music, they call it one-hit wonders. Museums also have those stocked into their cellars.

The second is communication. I do think that every form of art is communication, it is speaking to an observer in a certain language. Of course, some languages are pretty complicated to understand and require some effort from the observer. It might require learning that language.

The third being innovation. Everything evolves and in that, art evolves too. Some art is highly innovative and in that might be hard to understand but behind all this innovation should be an intellectual process and I mean a true intellectual process. It's pretty easy to just do something but it is pretty hard to do it for a specific purpose.

Of course nowadays art = money and due to that, we see artificially elevated art. The same principles applied to make you want to buy a car are applied to art. After all, quality is of lesser importance than profit.

Absolutely correct. I saw an interesting news article on TV last year some time, I believe. It was talking about "Generation Me." For the last 20 or so years, egalitarianism and the push for political correctness and special consideration has corrupted society. They gave an example of Pee-Wee League baseball; this is the league for like 4-7 year old kids, the baseball is set up on a tee or is pitched very gently by an adult. There are no clear winners/losers; everybody wins, so that nobody feels "left out." Personally, I feel that losing builds character, because losing forces change and adaptation.

So, as a result of this "everybody wins" mentality (which is NOT applicable in the real world, of which kids know nothing, but if they do not learn, they are in for a wicked surprise when they suddenly find themselves in it), coupled with the general decline in intellect in the overall population, we have a generation of mediocrities who think they are rather great. That is why we have so much workplace incompetence, and this new surge of people who are famous for absolutely nothing, or famous for stupid things. Case in point, Kevin Federline; some people may consider nailing Britney Spears quite an accomplishment worthy of fame, but I am not one of them, and I do not think she would be much of a challenge anyway; her choice of a mate more than proves that fact. And yet, he walks around with a sense of accomplishment and self-worth that is, quite frankly, undeserved. He could be the poster boy for today's mediocrities. It kind of reminds me of the character of Salieri in Amadeus; then again, he was acutely aware of his mediocrity. Many of today's generations are blissfully ignorant.

"Don't tell Jimmy he sucks at trumpet; we don't want to damage his sense of self-worth."

Give me fucking break.

Quote:

At the level of art I do think there are some requirement for something to be Art. Although it does not necessarily require all.

I agree. Of the three you mentioned, I think two out of three should be required. That seems fair.

Quote:

Of course nowadays art = money and due to that, we see artificially elevated art. The same principles applied to make you want to buy a car are applied to art. After all, quality is of lesser importance than profit.

The arts in general are no longer art; art is a business. Of course, making music at a higher level was, in one way or another, about making money making music. During the Medieval and Renaissance periods, patronage was the domain of the church. In the Baroque and Classical periods, musicians could make a living under the patronage of the aristocracy or with church appointments (Bach did both). In the 19th century, after the fall of the aristocracy in the major revolutions, musicians had to get their money from the public, i.e. concert tours, and publication of their works (of which they received royalties). The advent of recording in the 20th century forever changed the face of music. With the advent of disco in the 70s, corporate greed was born, and companies churned out dime-a-dozen acts like there was no tomorrow. In the 80s, it was hair metal. In the 90s, boy-bands and rap/hip-hop. Today, it is still rap/hip-hop, largely untalented solo singers (male and female), and what I like to call "radio rock" cookie cutter bands. Music is no longer art; it is a product, a commodity. Profit over quality, indeed.

take some small solace though in that the major labels, which have become shareholder driven banks/loansharks essentially, are starting to fear for their very existence. the entire industry shows signs of tanking, and they know it. they simply could not or would not adapt.

it will take generations and cultural catastrophe to curb this flood of egalitarianism though Im afraid. no one wants to give up their uniqueness, no matter how false or borrowed it may be.

It will indeed require a lot to redirect humanity out of egalitarianism and into a healthy respect (and striving) for elitism again. Uniqueness can indeed be a luring pipe-dream. Frankly, I do think that uniqueness is overrated. If you look at a person, the strange contradiction is that while their uniqueness is put upon a pedestal, at the same time they are always looking into others for those values and traits they cherish most. In that, reality shows that they don't find uniqueness as important as commonness. Even we as satanists tend to prefer people we share aspects with and look down upon those that don't possess them at all.

Anyways, as an example of what I consider art, I'd like to share/quote some upon a work of Picasso. Many do not like Picasso, partly because Cubism fails to use some of the tricks that make paintings be perceived as beautiful. Beautiful here being perceived as pretty. Often I also hear the 'My kid could have drawn that' comment which is one of the standard sentences uttered by people not being too knowledgeable upon art to begin with. I always liked Picasso even when he dwelled far from what is here called academic art. I think Guernica is the work of him that I encountered first. It is a bit overrepresented and although it is an emotionally strong work, I do not think it is his best.His best work, to me, is Les Mademoiselles d'Avignon.

I once saw a documentary upon it, years ago, and the work behind the painting was enormous. It is an intellectual and artistic exploration that is mind blowing. Even when it has everything to be considered either ugly or easy, it is a work that combines all three requirements I talked about before. Even after finishing it, it remained a very long time in his workplace before he dared showing it to the world.

I don't think the documentary exists in English, I saw a Dutch one but I'll add the painting here and a review that explains a bit of the process and language behind or in it.

Quote:

Les Mademoiselles d'Avignon ( preserved in Museum of Modern art, New York) is one of the most famous of Picasso's paintings. Painted in France, 1907, it is a pivotal work in the history and development of modern art. It was a shocking piece of art painting that depicted five prostitutes in a brothel. Picasso created over one hundred sketched and studies in preparation of this painting, which became a pioneer of early Cubism. At the time when this painting was made, Picasso was working in his Montmartre studio, popularly known as the Bateau-Lavoir. He was developing a new pictorial language that showed a progression from the 'outer presence to inner shapes, from color to structure, and from modified romanticism to a deepening formalism'.

This painting is said to have blended together Picasso's previous themes and subjects with Iberian statuary-ancient pre-Spanish sculpture-and African art, adored for its seemingly abstract simplifications. This Picasso painting has also been regarded as the young Picasso's violent reaction to Henri Matisse's bold and idyllic 1906 masterpiece, Le Bonheur de Vivre. While some critics regard it as an unfinished work, others claim that inconsistency is intrinsic to this Picasso painting.

This being the first masterpiece of the historical movement named Cubism, required to unleash its unbridled energy in an artistic vocabulary unknown and untied to the existing canon. Of all the paintings in Picasso's oeuvre, Les Demoiselles d'Avignon presents a singular challenge for interpreting its physical composition as well as its psychological content due to its scale, composition, and change in pictorial style. A close examination of this transitional painting and a comparison with some closely related works allows us to better understand how the painting was conceived and executed.

Picasso painted each of the figures differently. The woman pulling the curtain on the far left has heavy paint application and her head is the most cubist of all, having sharp geometric shapes. The cubist head of the crouching figure was revised from an Iberian figure and the masked figure was derived from an African mask. The two Iberian figures at the center are evidently inspired by Iberian sculptures, characterized by their prominent ears and wide, staring eyes. The multiplicity of styles within the work has given rise to much critical debate. While some look at this famous Picasso painting as evidence of a transitional period in Picasso's art, an endeavor to relate his earlier work to Cubism, others claim that the multiplicity is but intentional. It is a deliberate attempt, a careful plan to arrest the viewer's attention. The five women seem to be disconnected from each other, being completely unaware of their subjective presence. They seem to be directing all their attention towards the viewer, their divergent styles enhancing the effect. The painting is pregnant with meanings, and indicates the 'trauma of the gaze' and violence inherent in sexual relationships.

I have never been interested, so I do not really know what all goes into making a rap song/record. It seems to me, however, that it is mostly a cut-and-paste kind of job. Much of what I have heard (which is, admittedly, little) seems to consist in large part of sampling, which is to say bits of music by other artists, or sound samples in a software database. You may disagree, but take P. Diddy for instance. I find the guy to be a hack, and you may agree. He made his career from raping songs by the Police and Led Zeppelin; his only contribution were new lyrics. The beat, the music, nor any of the rest of it his original music. That is like taking the Mona Lisa, painting a mustache on it, crossing out Da Vinci's signature and writing your own.

Diddy is a pretty piss-poor example of a good producer. I quote from Last Night a DJ Saved My Life: "Sean 'Puffy' Combs of Bad Boy Records seems to have hits in his sleep, most of them cynical karaoke-style remakes of tried and trusted pop hits with the latest ghetto sensation rapping over the top."

Sampling, when done properly, stops being a piece of someone else's song, and starts being a piece of one's own. It very much can be a new artistic creation. If not, then the remix isn't, the cover isn't, and the proper club DJ's job isn't.

For the record, I have assisted in the production of a couple of hip-hop tracks, so I do know what all it entails. It's not simple, or by any means "cut and paste". A lot of effort goes into an original instrumental, for any genre of music.

Quote:

The thing I dislike about rap lyrics is how they perpetuate the poor (if not incoherent) use of the English language. "Is you is, or is you ain't gon' give me a ride?" While I understand that "I faced my enemy with the courage of my convictions" does not have as much street cred as "I was all up in that nigga's face to show him I keep it real," it is far more well-spoken.

I agree. As I said, I'm generally not a hip-hop/rap fan, and the complete butchering of the English language, as often takes place, is one main reason. There is intelligent hip-hop, though. It's rare, but it does exist.

Quote:

Catchy tends to translate as "simplistic," which is not always a bad thing. However, many of the beats I have heard are simplistic to the point of being elementary. When a hip-hop guy comes back with a beat reminiscent of the shifting meter in the Rite of Spring, perhaps I will be impressed. If one already exists, please let me know. Of course, then it would be harder to dance to (but not impossible; it is a ballet, after all).

Most music has a beat (there are some composers in art music of the 20th century who created music which all but eschews meter). However, I cannot tell you how many times I have heard someone say "I like it because it has a beat and I can dance to it." That, in my opinion, is not a viable aesthetic position.

Here's the thing, because the need of the listener of music are very, very different from the needs of someone dancing to music. Liking certain forms of music over others due to their danceability, or lack thereof, is very much a valid position.

Quote:

I do not wish this to be understood as a personal attack against anyone; I wish to debate, to have my opinions challenged.

A lot of effort goes into an original instrumental, for any genre of music.

Perhaps, but the real question is, "is the effort required the same for all genres." When all is said and done, as all men are NOT created equal, neither is all music. Again, maybe that is elitist, but I do not think so.

For example, I am (trying) to write a three-voice fugue for a Baroque Counterpoint class. While there is certainly room for creative freedom, one must learn to use creative freedom within the constraints imposed upon one when composing in strict Baroque contrapuntal terms. Rules of proper voice leading must be observed, dissonances must be treated (prepared, placed, and resolved) properly, and the fugal subject(s), countersubject(s), answer(s) must all work properly. Not to mention that before all of this even, one must be knowledgeable in the area of music theory which presupposes the ability to read (and write) in standard musical notation, and the ability to play (however rudimentarily) a musical instrument (particularly a piano or some other instrument which can accompany itself, such as the guitar). It can prove to be a daunting task. Perhaps it is unfair to compare art music styles with popular ones, but I feel it applies.

Quote:

Here's the thing, because the need of the listener of music are very, very different from the needs of someone dancing to music.

True, and much (though certainly by no means all) of Baroque music is comprised, essentially, of dance suites: Allemande, Courante/Corrente, Sarabande, Minuet/Menuet, Gavotte, Loure, Double, Gigue, are all Baroque dance forms. Of course, by the late Baroque (Bach, Handel, Weiss), these dances had become stylized and were no longer danced, per se. These stylized dance suites truly became an art form, though it became more of a matter of form OVER function. Much of this music is still performed and recorded today (check out Sylvius Leopold Weiss' lute sonatas on the Naxos label, recorded by Robert Barto). However, how much of today's "dance hits" will stand such a test of time? (This, of course, we cannot know, as we will have been long dead). Much of this music of today, since it seems to fulfill a more immediate (and, therefore, ephemeral) need in the listener becomes itself quite transitory. Hence, I maintain my position that mere danceability is not a viable aesthetic position.

A lot of effort goes into an original instrumental, for any genre of music.

Perhaps, but the real question is, "is the effort required the same for all genres." When all is said and done, as all men are NOT created equal, neither is all music. Again, maybe that is elitist, but I do not think so.

We're in agreement here.

Quote:

For example, I am (trying) to write a three-voice fugue for a Baroque Counterpoint class. While there is certainly room for creative freedom, one must learn to use creative freedom within the constraints imposed upon one when composing in strict Baroque contrapuntal terms. Rules of proper voice leading must be observed, dissonances must be treated (prepared, placed, and resolved) properly, and the fugal subject(s), countersubject(s), answer(s) must all work properly. Not to mention that before all of this even, one must be knowledgeable in the area of music theory which presupposes the ability to read (and write) in standard musical notation, and the ability to play (however rudimentarily) a musical instrument (particularly a piano or some other instrument which can accompany itself, such as the guitar). It can prove to be a daunting task. Perhaps it is unfair to compare art music styles with popular ones, but I feel it applies.

Perhaps it is a tad bit unfair, but that's how shit goes in life, no? You're right, it does apply.

Quote:

Quote:

Here's the thing, because the need of the listener of music are very, very different from the needs of someone dancing to music.

True, and much (though certainly by no means all) of Baroque music is comprised, essentially, of dance suites: Allemande, Courante/Corrente, Sarabande, Minuet/Menuet, Gavotte, Loure, Double, Gigue, are all Baroque dance forms. Of course, by the late Baroque (Bach, Handel, Weiss), these dances had become stylized and were no longer danced, per se. These stylized dance suites truly became an art form, though it became more of a matter of form OVER function. Much of this music is still performed and recorded today (check out Sylvius Leopold Weiss' lute sonatas on the Naxos label, recorded by Robert Barto).

Fair enough. However, I feel there are two forms of "dance music" - that which is made specifically for the purpose of dancing, and that which is made, and may consequently have a dance form built around it, which is not true dance music.

Most modern forms of so-called "dance music" (i.e., hip-hop/rap, pop, certain areas of rock (and its many subgenres), and so forth) fall into the latter.

Of course, this is strictly my own opinion.

Quote:

However, how much of today's "dance hits" will stand such a test of time? (This, of course, we cannot know, as we will have been long dead).

Precisely; however I must surrender to the fact that the majority of today's popular music, never mind which genres, will more likely than not be totally forgotten in ten, twenty, thirty years. Today's music is undeniably created for mass consumption, and much of it is absolute crap. I won't deny that.

Quote:

Much of this music of today, since it seems to fulfill a more immediate (and, therefore, ephemeral) need in the listener becomes itself quite transitory.

I've nothing to combat this argument; you're absolutely right.

Quote:

Hence, I maintain my position that mere danceability is not a viable aesthetic position.

And still I disagree, but only because my experience in amplifying the emotions of a roomful of people and bringing them into a completely ecstatic peak gives me cause to.

Tech N9ne has an album permeated by Satanic imagery. Go on YouTube and check out King of Darkness. Pretty nice rhyming, not just end rhyme. Decent vocabulary as well. Nice neo-classical piano.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jlrwNe4CJk

_________________________
accept the darkness in your selfmake war against everything else

I certainly do know Satanic Rappers.I know most of you are speaking the English languages, but listen to it anyways the vibe tells enough.

The two artists are called Spinal and Steen.Take it a shot.De second link is from Spinal in English unfortunately from not that great of a quality but enough to give an impression of his personal quality.

Check out Bloodline and Gore Elohim aka Goretex of Non Phixion . also Lord Lhus ,and Jakprogresso aka Jak Tripper ...L. U. Cipha was some occult witchcraft shit I really like. Check some of these out its as raw as it gets.